Is broadness necessarily a bad thing?

I think the biggest mistake I made when deciding a topic was not understanding the depth we had to take for our research, and I ended up picking something much too broad for the scope of research expected of us. This isn’t to say I regret choosing my topic at all; getting the chance to explore the world of public health through an artistic lens allows me to learn about a different side of the field I hope to be in in the future. However, this choice was overambitious in the sense that I did not account for how broad the term “public health” is; it can be argued that everything is a public health issue, so where do I draw the line for the type of art I include in my experiments?

Upon starting the research for my first experiment, I realized that my topic didn’t really have a clear aim; which field or issue did I want to focus on the most? In a sense, this first experiment still allowed me to be broad, so I organized it in a way that included a brief rundown of various pertinent issues. I was able to get away with it this time, but I know that I will need to dig deeper for each new experiment, so I will have to make up my mind about a specific sect within public health to focus on. In this way, I remain optimistic and believe that this goal is attainable, because even if my final project focuses on, say, how the public is informed about vaccinations through artwork, this same template can be used for every single division of public health. If I really worked hard enough, I can create a comprehensive portfolio analyzing artwork in every area.

Leave a Reply